4.5 Article

Elemental compositions of papyrus removed from ancient cartonnage reveal technology and date papyrus

期刊

JOURNAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 160-166

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2023.10.001

关键词

Papyrus; Ink; Cartonnage; XRF; XRD; ANOVA; Dendrogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the elemental characteristics of papyri known or believed to have come from cartonnage, to understand how that usage might have changed the elemental compositions of those papyri, and reveals that inked areas have significantly greater concentrations of lead than areas with no ink.
Papyrus was used as a writing support from 2500 BC to the 11 th century AD to record and transfer information both in Egypt (where it has predominantly survived) and the wider Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. During the Ptolemaic and early Roman periods in Egypt (c. 322 BC-14 AD), discarded written papyri were recycled and widely used as a support to make cartonnage, which was a glued encasement to protect mummified bodies. This research investigates the elemental characteristics of papyri known or believed to have come from cartonnage, in order to understand how that usage might have changed the elemental compositions of those papyri. In this research, the elemental compositions of ink, no-ink and white areas (where observed) were characterised using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry in twenty papyri. Inked areas have significantly greater concentrations of lead than areas of papyri with no ink, and X-ray diffractometry revealed that calcite (CaCO 3 ) formed the white compound of the preparation layer of the cartonnage. Changes in ink composition may have the potential to be used as a technique for dating papyri. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR). This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据